Instead of,,

I've been thinking and thinking and thinking,,,

1. When u are mad at someone, instead of slamming the door behind u, y dont u leave it open so that the person whom u r mad at will have to get up and shut the door himself.
2. When u r mad at someone, instead of yelling at him, y dont u just play dumb and let him yell at u until he lost his voice.
3. When u r mad at someone, instead of telling him to shut up, why dont u just let him scold u so that he would have to think on what else he could scold u for.
4. When u are mad at someone, instead of talking nasty thing behind him, y dont u just let him talk behind u so that u could get more popular while he could get bad reputation for having bad mouth.
5. When u are mad at someone, instead of blaming everything on him, y dont u take a time off and think that maybe it is true that u have done something wrong.
6. Finally, instead of being mad at someone, why dont u take the higher road and move on..

Poly-WHAT?

So, I have few friends who already planned to get married, not to one woman, but God willing, up to four women. These friends of mine are only twenty-ish years old, still studying, and well, not so organized. Not to condemn anyone, but I am a bit disappointed.

Yes, Islam allows a man to get married up to 4 women if he can be fair and just to them. Yes, the Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. had 11 wives. Yes, many Ulama' had agreed on the interpretations of sure An-Nisa on the polygamy matter. So what the hell am I doing writing down my disappointment?

See, I believe that in Islam, polygamy is one of many ways for Islam to take care of the women and their dignities. It is supposed to help out the unfortunate women, to love them and to take care of their needs.

By having many wives, the husband would have more responsibilities; and not the other way around. That's a simple logic. There's a guy who has 4 wives and he said that having many wives really makes his life easier because if he has to go somewhere for a long time to do dakwah, (he's in tabligh movement) his wives can look after each other, so he would not get worried being far away from them. Sounds like a pretty good deal isn't it? But, looking from another view, it is not that he would not have to worry about his wives while he's away because they can take care of each other; instead, he has to be really worried because he now has to worry about the safety and the conditions of not one, but four women while he's away. And how about the kids? Back to basic, whose responsibility is it to take care of a wife? Yes, the husband, not the other wives. If a man opts to marry more than one woman, it means he chooses more responsibilities, more provinces. It is just not right to leave your responsibility to someone else.

To some people, I may sound biased; be clear that I made my judgment based on my observation of the people living in my country. From what I saw, heard and perceived, many men desire to have many wives for the wrong reasons and use Islam to justify their actions. For instance, a guy wants to espouse a second wife to express his love in the 'halal' way and to avoid from doing maksiat. Well, this is also one of the reasons why you have a wife in the first place. If you already have a wife, and you want another because of that same reason, are you implying that one wife is not enough for you? Or, is it so hard to be loyal and faithful to your first wife?

Blame me if you want, because I am just pointing out some common things in our society. It is so common that nobody really pay attention to the details anymore. There are many rules to polygamy which one needs to abide, but many just pretend that these rules do not exist or apply to them. One scenario would be that a man wants to take a second wife, but he is financially unstable that he does not even have enough money to take care of his first wife!

Of course, not everybody is like that. There are still many people who do polygamy according to Islamic teaching, but deny not, humans are imperfect and prone to making mistakes. I just hope that any individual who planned to have more than one wife, do it because of Allah, not because of your own selfish satisfaction. Please learn and be more understanding of what polygamy really means and see if you really up for it.

Enough said.

Blind faith

SPRING 2009

It was in this semester I finally realized one of the most important themes about faith.

UNDERSTANDING

It all started when I took the course “Religious Study 107- Intro to Islam”. Deceived by the words “Intro” and “Islam”, I confidently judged the course as an easy-to-score-an-A course. Why not? I was born a Muslim, raised a Muslim, been living in a country that the majority of its citizens are Muslims, and being taught about Islam formally (in school) since I was 7. So, why not take this course and get an A for my humanity credits?

My early judgment of this course turned out to be a ‘not-so-cool’ judgment, mostly because after the first class, I began to have a clearer version of what this course would be like. In brief, this course is about the history of Islam, from its early years until recent, issues in Islam and a whole lot more. (Yes, what an Introduction to Islam!!).

Put aside the nature of this course, what I’m more interested in sharing today is the way this course was handled. To my evaluation, I’d say that 92% of this course was conducted through discussion among students (Sunnis, Shias, Christians, Jews, Buddhist, and Atheist) and the professor, while the other 8 % consist of writings and exams. The main point here is that in this course, I was able to learn about Islam differently from when I was schooling in Malaysia. Back then, most of the students, including me, would never question about anything that have been told by the teacher (ustazah). Even in high school, we would never question anything being taught (at least in my school). Maybe Islamic Education is only taught to Muslims students, so, we tend to accept all information without a slight doubt. Put t in another way, we were comfortable with what we the teacher told us, mostly because they are similar to what we have always believed.

However, learning about Islam in another school in another country which majority of its citizens are Christians has exposed me to a new experience. Learning Islam has never been the same. Whenever the professor told the class about something on Islam, there would be a lot of questions being asked by the students, both the Muslims and non-Muslims. For instance, there was one time when we learnt about the life of Muhammad S.A.W. (peace be upon him), and the professor said that Muhammad was illiterate to prove that he did not write the Quran himself, almost half of the class raised up their hands to ask questions. And one of the questions that caught my attention was “Is there any proof that shows Muhammad was illiterate? Or is it just based on the hadith?” This question was asked by a Christian friend.

Interesting. That is how I felt. There are lots of things about Islam being questioned. Also about the differences between Sunni and Shia. What makes things more interesting was when most of the questions are the questions that I, as a Muslim, could never answer. Not because I am not an ulama or whatever, but because I have never questioned about any information that I received when I studied Islam back in Malaysia. No skepticism. Perhaps I was scared to question things on religious matter. Why? Because I was scared that I do not believe in Allah, in Muhammad, or in Quran enough that would make me a Musyrik. Because I was scared that the teacher would be mad at me for questioning too much about Islam. Because sometimes, even the teacher herself would never satisfy my hunger for absolute answer by just telling me “Only God knows”.

So I wonder. When we believe in something, how do we have faith in it? Is it enough to just accept things that we do not understand why they are the way they are? Is it enough to have faith in something just because our parents believe in the same thing? Or because the wise men said so?

Now I know. In order to have faith, we should understand it as a whole. We need to understand why we have to do this, and why we have to do that. It is not necessary to search for logical reasoning to satisfy our skepticism. As long as we understood, there is no room for blind faith.

Silence not the women

This entry is taken from The Star (July 5th, 2009) written by Zainah Anwar ( President of SIS).

It is an interesting article and worth reading!

WHENEVER I give talks on Islam and women’s rights in any part of the world, I am often asked the familiar question from Islamists in the audience: “What right do you have to speak on Islam? You are not an expert. When you are sick, you go to a doctor. When you have questions about Islam, you go to the ulama. He is the expert,” they say triumphantly, as if to end the debate.
Depending on the audience and the mood, sometimes I answer the question flippantly, most times seriously.


My flippant answer is, well, if I don’t like that doctor’s opinion or treatment, I go to another doctor. And if the doctor prescribes me the wrong treatment, I could sue him for malpractice and get him deregistered.


But I can’t do that with an ulama. If I challenge him and his prescription to my complaints of injustice and ill-treatment, I could be accused of going against God, against Islam, against Syariah. I could even be declared an apostate, my name denounced in mosque sermons and have rabid-looking men gather after Friday prayers with placards demanding my detention under the ISA.


But my serious answer is this: When Islam is used as a source of law and public policy, then everyone has the right to talk about the subject. Public law, public policy must by necessity be opened to public debate, and pass the test of public reason.


If I am discriminated against, treated unjustly, fined, jailed, sentenced to death, or have my hands and feet cut off in the name of Islam, then of course I will speak out and protect my rights and my interests. Those who do not want anyone but the ulama to speak on Islam must realise that the only way to preserve the religion from public scrutiny is to take it out of the public sphere and keep it private between the believer and God.


But when you proclaim that Islam is a way of life, Islam is the solution, Islam has all the answers, you cannot then tell everyone who disagrees with you to shut up because only you will provide the answers. That is tantamount to totalitarian rule.


Women’s groups demanding for equality and justice in Islam are not questioning the religion as revealed by God, but questioning the decision by those in authority, be it religious, political, or social, who adopt a position that discriminates against women, and then proclaim that their position is the one true Islam.


This is so obviously not so. If there is only one true understanding of Islam, then why are there different schools of law and theology in the Islamic tradition? Why are there many different laws governing marriage, polygamy, divorce, custody, guardianship, inheritance, and financial rights in the Muslim world, sometimes even within one school of law, nay, even within one country?
In Malaysia alone, we have 14 separate jurisdictions governing Islamic matters, each state jealously guarding its power to interpret and legislate on these subjects.


In one renowned polygamy case, a man who was denied permission to marry a second wife by the Syariah Appeal Committee of Selangor, because he had not fulfilled all four conditions to justify his application, went to Terengganu to marry the woman because that state did not require him to fulfil any conditions under the law.


Was the Terengganu law less Islamic than the Selangor law? Was the Terengganu judge who granted permission going against God’s law, or the Selangor panel of three judges who refused permission?


Which is the right Islam? How is this to be decided? Is it really God’s law that we are talking about or the law of the state, constructed and enforced by human beings, marred by human imperfections?


In my talks, I sometimes share with the audience the story of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Rightly Guided Caliph. The Khawarij who were once Ali’s supporters rebelled against him when Ali decided to negotiate for peace with Mu’awiya who had waged civil war against Ali’s rule. The Khawarij believed that the Caliphate rightly belonged to Ali, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law. They claimed this was a God-given law and there was nothing to negotiate. Ali’s action was denounced as a violation of God’s will as Ali had accepted human judgment, instead of God’s law. They called Ali a traitor to God and eventually assassinated him.


While this story is usually cited as an example of Muslim fanaticism, a more instructive lesson is on the role of human agency in interpreting the divine word. In dealing with the rebellion among the Khawarij, it was reported that Ali called for a gathering and brought out a large copy of the Quran. He touched the Quran, commanding it to speak and inform the people of God’s law. There was only silence, for the Quran indeed did not speak, could not speak unless of course there was human intervention.


It is human beings who read God’s revealed message and interpret its meaning.
Thus the product of that human engagement with the divine text is not divine law, but human-constructed law.


Within the context of a democratic nation state such as Malaysia, can this process of law-making be the sole preserve of the ulama? Within the context of the changing realities of our lives today from the time the classical texts were written, shouldn’t the law-making process be conducted in democratic engagement, especially with those who are affected by these laws and policies?


Just as the classical jurists were guided by the social and political realities of their age when they interpreted the Quran and Sunnah, so should our modern-day religious and political authorities.
In the 21st century, there cannot be justice without equality. It is as simple as that.


The reason women’s voices are the loudest in the demands for change is because we no longer find it tolerable to live a life defined and controlled by others who do not live our realities. We could use the same logic as that used by the Islamists, by saying that men have no business telling us how we should live our lives because they have never experienced life as a woman.


But that is of course not a constructive approach in our search for solutions to the injustices and discrimination against women committed in the name of Islam. We want a respectful and productive engagement so that the justice, mercy and compassion of Islam become core values in our process of law-making and law-enforcement and in our daily lives.


Why is that so difficult to understand?

Inefficient dakwah

(Before you read this post, please be clear that this is only from my point of view. Who am I? A student, a woman, a muslim, a malaysian, not a naqibah, and most importantly, a human).

Tujuan entry ni bukanlah untuk menyinggung perasaan para pendakwah semalaysia,,sebaliknye adalah untuk memberi sedikit input supaya proses pendakwahan anda menjadi semakin efisyen, terutamanye students yang menjadi naqib atau naqibah di kolej or di sekolah.

Since aku bersekolah di STJ ( asrama), aku diperkenalkan dengan konsep usrah. Buat sesape yang tak clear ngan konsep usrah ni, boley lah google. hehe. tp, basically, usrah ni macam konsep keluarga, di mane korg akan diberi group untuk berjumpe and berbincang la tentang ape2 hal pon, mostly pasal hal ehwal agama la. Then, aku pon continue belajar di KMB, and kat sini usrah pon masih dijalankan setiap minggu, dan semua students wajib hadir. Recently, aku study kat pennstate, and Alhamdulillah, masih ade aktiviti usrah (walaupon aku ni bukan active member usrah hehe), aku kagum gak.

So, setelah aku ni didedahkan dengan idea dakwah secare usrah ni, banyak bende yang aku perhatikan. (jgn igt aku tak aktif, aku tak tau hehe,,ni bekas naqibah ni hehe). Yang paling jelas, tak ramai org yang suke pergi usrah..nak tau kenape? aku pon tak sure kenape ramai org tak suke gi usrah sebab tu sume berbeza antara individu tersebut.tp, dengan situasi sebegini, jelaslah bahawa dakwah secare usrah kurang efisyen. kenape? antare sebabnye adalah seperti berikut:

• Topik kurang / tidak menarik (kurang variasi)

Untuk ape2 bende sekali pun, topik atau tajuk merupakan elemen yang terpenting untuk menarik hati orang ramai. Contoh, kalau nak tgk wayang, kite akan tgk tajuk cite tu ape, baru kite decide nak tgk ke tak wayang tu. kalau kite rase tajuk cite tu menarik and ade kaitan dengan kite, sure kite akan pertimbangkan nak tgk ke tak. tp kalau cite tu tajuk die macam bosan bagi kite, atau takde kene mengena pon ngan kite, mmg out of the list lah. so, same lah macam kes usrah ni. topik yang nak dibincangkan oleh para naqib/naqibah kadang kala gagal menarik hati pelajar lain untuk turut serta. Mase aku kat sekolah dulu, time form 5, sepanjang tahun usrah, bende yang dibincang sumenye pasal ibadat. ie. solat, puase, bersuci, etc....memang la penting untuk sebagai muslim, kite kene perfectkan bende2 basic pasal ibadat ni, baru boleh jadi seorang muslim yang baik. Tp, kite tak leh lupe, yang muslim adalah manusia yang penuh dengan kelemahan. Antarenye, perasaan bosan. Imagine, time sekolah rendah kite belajar ibadat, sekolah menengah pon dalam syllabus pendidikan islam kite sentuh pasal ibadat yang same. so kalau kite asek dengar bende yang same je, tak ke boring. ramai yang akan cakap "alah, topik ni kan dah pernah belajar kat kelas, takkan nak belajar lagi,,takde bende lain ke nak discuss??asek2 bende same,,taknak la gi usrah camni,,dah tau dah,,"

• Topik tak selaras dengan umur/background

Macam point sebelum ni, topik usrah sangat penting dalam menjanjikan usrah yang berjaye. Salah satu bende penting yang perlu dipertimbangkan dalam memilih tajuk usrah mestilah depends dengan umur dan background ahli2 usrah kite. Kalau ahli usrah kite tu pelajar kolej dan dah berumur 20-an, takkan nak bincang pasal cara2 menyucikan diri lagi atau topik macam 'bagaimana menjadi pelajar yang berjaye' dan lain2. Lagi menarik kalau issue2 semase menjadi topik. Contohnye issue palestine ngan israel ke, issue al qaeda ke, syiah dan ahli sunnah ke, pakistan ke, ape2 issue yang boleh membuka minda dan mempelawa banyak pendapat dari ahli usrah, daripada issue yang menjadikan ahli usrah kite sebagai pendengar aje. Kalau ahli usrah tu ramai dari golongan professioanal atau student kolej, tak salah nak bincang issue berat atau sensitive.

• Mewajibkan usrah

Kebanyakan sekolah akan mewajibkan usrah untuk setiap pelajar. Kenape nak wajibkan usrah? kalau topik usrah tu menarik, pasti ramai org akan datang usrah dengan rela hati. tapi, macam mane nak tau topik tu menarik untuk semua org ke tak kan? semua org berbeza..hurmm,,,ramai org pernah cakap yang quality lagi penting dari kuantiti. kalau semua org datang usrah sebab terpakse, ade high possibility yang ape di ajar mase usrah tu takkan diingati atau dihiraukan langsung. Lagi better kalau usrah ni tidak diwajibkan, sebaliknye untuk sesiape yang berminat. kalau usrah ni menarik, surely ramai yang akan datang. macam konsert jugak, ramai je datang tgk konsert walaupun tak wajib tgk kan? another thing, setiap manusia ni ade priority yang berbeza. tak semestinye seseorang tu tak datang usrah sebab die ni mmg hati batu taknak berubah or dgr teguran org ke ape, tapi mungkin ade bende lain yang bagi die lagi penting nak kene buat. Dan kalau usrah diwajibkan pada certain time yang mmg die kene buat bende lain, secare tidak langsung die akan menganggap usrah sebagai beban. makanye, makin jauh lah hati die daripada menghadiri usrah.

• Stereotype

Bukan semua, tapi ade sesetengah org yang nak berdakwah ni suke gune bahase arab dan memakai pakaian arab. Harus di tekankan bahawa islam bukan arab. arab tidak melambangkan islam. kenape? sebab islam tu agame, arab tu bangse, islam percaye Allah, ade arab yang kafir, islam tu adil dan suci, ade arab yang suke bergaduh dan berperang. Jadi, kenape perlunye sesetengah org nak gune bahase arab (ana, anta, etc,,)dalam proses pendakwahan kepade orang melayu? adakah dengan menggunakan bahase arab, mereka akan nampak lebih alim dan beriman? atau adekah kerana mereka mengikut sunnah nabi? Ape pun jawapannye, semua terpulang kepade masing2. ape yang nak di tekankan di sini ialah jika kite hendak berdakwah, care pendekatan mestilah sesuai, dan yang paling penting, kite perlu pastikan mesej yang nak disampaikan tu dapat di absorbed oleh orang lain, bukan menjauhkan lagi orang lain daripada kita.

Before aku berhenti menaip, lagi sekali aku nak igtkan bahawe semua ini adalah pendapat aku dan tidak ditujukan buat semua naqib dan naqibah,,aku tau ramai je yang bagus dalam menjadi naqiba naqibah cemerlang,,. jadi, kalau ade yang nak betulkan atau nak nasihatkan aku, sile lah, saye terime dengan hati terbuka. same2 kite menjadi lebih baik. Akhir kate, selamat lah ye.

When 2 is worse than 1

Question: when was the last time u heard someone giving a speech? do u realize that most people (especially malays) would start their speech by greeting the audience with "Assalamualaikum and Selamat sejahtera,,,"?

I was talking to my father about something (that I already forgot by now), when suddenly this issue came about: Why does in every speech, most people would greet his/her audience using 2 languages instead of just using 1 language that is known to be understood by all?

Like in Malaysia, we know that every Malaysian understands the Malay language ( if u know anybody (malaysian) who doesn't know malay language, go kick him on his butt!), so what the hell is the purpose of using Arab language and Malay language together for greeting the same audience? (Unless the audience consists of some Pak Arabs). But NO, we heard this over and over again since we were in primary schools, and we will still hear the same thing when we get old. it is like a 'must' in every speech.

Now, lets get further on this matter. we all know that 'assalamualaikum' is meant for Muslims and 'selamat sejahtera' is meant for the non muslims audience. But we also know that the meaning of assalamualaikum is the same as the meaning of selamat sejahtera. this brings us back to the same question: Why do we need greetings from 2 diff languages for the same audience?? esp when they both meant the same.

Why differentiate between muslims and non muslims? why differentiate Malaysians? aren't we supposed to be 'satu malaysia'?? What is wrong with greeting both muslims and non muslims in malaysia with just a simple 'assalamualaikum', better yet, just use our very own language 'selamat sejahtera kepada semua',,bukankah lebih indah begitu?

everybody is talking about the importance of unity, but many people overlooked small matters as this one, which in fact plays a great role in pursuing a united Malaysia!


p/s: one reason why people tend to greet the muslims in arabic is because they think that Arabic is the language of Islam. i hope we can discuss further on this one next time because i need my coffee to talk about it ;p